#one ought to acknowledge the difficulty of that

[wastrelwoods]

the thing abt 'will and hannibal are already secretly married pre-canon' AUs is that it's not my vibe from a characterization standpoint but MORE than that i am always curious if the author is truly deeply madly aware that gay marriage was only just legalized at the start of 2013 in maryland, was still a hypothetical gleam in the eye of the virginia legislature until the end of 2014, and the furthest you could backdate it in DC would be 2010 unless you were settling for a domestic partnership. louisiana had to wait all the way up to obergefell in 2015 so that's a non-starter. anyway i get that that's not to everyone a compelling reality to acknowledge but i guess it pulls me out of it sometimes bc it doesn't feel like the kind of thing i personally would handwave away for these guys in particular in this situation, that there is a very shaky and inconsistent legal recognition available to them if they wanna be husbands. i guess this still applies post-canon but they're fugitives from the law anyway you know

[moon-ttokki-x]

stupidly perfect - (best friend!bang chan x reader) part 2

pairing: best friend!bang chan x reader

summary: after a nasty scare, you talk to felix and hyunjin about what happened. the distance between you and chan grows, until...

genre: angsty angsty, idol!au, mentions of hospital, blood, cuts, bruises, no graphic descriptions, mentions of needles (blood withdrawals), mentions of food and drink, han and jeongin want to be medical professionals, seungmin is far too honest (he loves them really), chan loses his shit, i'm not sorry for the ending :]

a/n: the long-awaited part of 'stupidly perfect'! everyone cheer . div by @ferretmilkshakezzz

skz masterlist | skz prompt list | part one here

The room is cold; it's the kind of cold that you only experience in hospital. That starched-white, stiff, sterilized cold that seems to sink into every fibre of your being, turning it to ice, until all you can do is sink further into the pristine sheets, trying to find some semblance of warmth.

Warmth.

It reminds you of Chan all over again; the pining, the admiring, the restaurant, Chae. Crying in the bathroom. Confessing. The car.

It's been two days since the accident; your cuts and scrapes are beginning to scab over, but you're still not allowed to leave. They woke you in the hospital in a daze, took one look at your battered body, and that was that. One week of staying in hospital, then they'll see what they can do about letting you go home.

You sigh. Turning onto your side with some difficulty, you survey the familiar white blandness of the room.

It's empty enough; the door in the corner has a pane of frosted glass over it, and a couple of switches by the frame. There's a white table and two chairs placed near the wide window, and the monitors surrounding your bed are a sterile light grey, beeping and flashing.

White, white, white.

Huffing and turning to your left to look out the window instead, you find a slightly more interesting sight; raindrops slide down the glass in a constant, heavy drizzle, and you can just make out the tall, surroundings buildings nearby. The sky is grey, and you think then that maybe the world really has lost its colour. It only felt that way at first; now you can't help but wonder if your world is turning to greyscale, void of colour and life and love.

There's a knock on the door and you're sluggishly dragged out of your misery. Pressing a button by your bedside to let whoever it is in, you sit up a little as a nurse enters the room.

"Hello," she says softly. "Feeling any better?"

You shake your head, and try to offer a smile, but it doesn't work.

"Poor you," she replies quietly. "Anything to eat, maybe? A drink of water?"

"No, thank you," you whisper, exhausted.

She nods, adjusting the hem of her ironed top, and then moves to draw the blinds down. Just enough to dim the room slightly and still let you look out the window.

"You have a visitor," the nurse says softly. "Are you feeling well enough to see them, or should I tell them to come some other time?"

You sit up a little straighter then, heart beginning to throb unpleasantly in your chest. "I, um.. Let them in."

She nods and leaves, and you can hear her softly speaking to someone in the corridor. There's a little bit of shuffling, and then a familiar face pokes its nose into the room.

"Felix," you say, relieved.

He shuts the door with far more care than he ought to, and the comical sight makes your heart twinge. You didn't even realise how much you missed him, too caught up in your own head to acknowledge the Felix-shaped hole in your heart.

He drags a chair from the table over to the bedside and flops down, depositing his bag onto the floor. You inhale deeply; a fresh wave of sweet-smelling cologne fills your senses, immediately reinvigorating. The air feels light and tangy.

"How have you been?" Felix says quietly. "Heard it was nasty."

You sit up with some difficulty, trying to ignore the stabbing pains in your joints. "Yeah, I'm okay. I guess. Could've been worse."

Quiet. Then-

"He's torn to pieces about it," he says even quieter. "Chan."

You sigh and look down at your bruised hands, fiddling over the starched sheets. "Oh."

"Yeah."

Biting the inside of your cheek, you slide down a little against the pillow. "Is- is he okay? Like..."

Felix sighs, running a hand through his dark hair. Leaning back on the chair, he toes his boots off and places his socked feet on the bed, crossing his legs over one another. You crack a tiny smile at the casual gesture.

"He hasn't been talking much," he muses. "Kind of just stays in his room most of the time. He stopped talking to Chae as well. He felt so guilty."

You groan. "I didn't try to make him feel guilty. I just wanted to tell him how I felt all this time... and I wouldn't have done it if I hadn't been so upset about what happened at the restaurant."

"I know."

"He didn't have to cut Chae off because of it... I kinda wanted them to stop talking, but I didn't want that to happen..."

"I know."

"And now I messed up and I'm stuck in hospital all cut and bruised because I couldn't fucking look both ways before I crossed the road-"

"I know."

You slap him half-heartedly on the shoulder. "Is that all you're going to say?"

He runs a hand through his dark locks again. "Nah. By the way, I'm sorry I didn't come sooner to see you. I figured you'd want some time to rest and heal."

You sigh. "It's okay. I just- Everything is a mess right now."

"Messes can be cleaned."

You sigh and shift against the uncomfortable firm mattress. "Lix?"

He tilts his head. "Yeah?"

"I'm really glad you came to see me."

Felix is silent. Then, he stands and leans against the glass of the window, looking down thoughtfully to the streets below.

You get out of bed with some difficulty and join him, letting your forehead rest on the cold, cool glass. You're not bothered that he isn't replying to your sentiment; sometimes, people say the most when they speak no words at all.

Both of you are aware that the glass could break at any moment and send you both hurtling to the ground, but you don't move and neither does Felix, still looking down onto the street far, far below.

All you can hear is his soft breathing, the muted sounds of city life rumbling seemingly right under your feet, and the occasional soft footsteps of a nurse outside the door.

"Are you gonna talk to him?" Felix says. "About it all."

It's a vague enough question; strangely, you feel your heart flutter. Talking to Chan after getting out of hospital seems like such a faraway event. Like it's something that you don't need to worry about for the next few years, so distant.

That is not true.

"I'm gonna have to face him at some point," you say, sighing in resignation. "Should I wait for him to find me first? It might be less awkward..."

Felix lets out a little laugh, drawing a circle on the glass with his fingertip. "It's gonna be awkward either way."

You sigh and look down at the streets below. It seems so peaceful up here, yet you can see the faint, faraway tell-tale gathering of dark clouds on the horizon.

He's right.

.

"So," Yuna exhales, pulling your bag inside the door. "Do you want me to pick up anything from the grocery store for you?"

You think about this question as you set your waterbottle down on the counter. It's so good to finally be back home. Yuna, one of your work friends, called and asked if you wanted help getting set up back at home, and you had readily and gratefully agreed.

"Um.. I need more milk and..." You open the fridge, then the pantry, to inspect what needs replacing. "...And some ramen."

Yuna scoffs. "Y/n, you are not living off ramen. You just got out of a week in hospital... do you want to send yourself back in from an MSG overdose?"

You laugh, your healing ribs hurting at the action, and unzip your bag. "Okay, fine. I'll ask Felix if he can spare me anything. The boys said they'd drop off a few things for me too."

She brings you in carefully for a hug, and you wrap your arms around her frame. She smells so nice, and not for the first time do you deeply relish the warmth of someone's arms around your body. There's something about physical affection that is just so comforting.

Especially after so long in hospital.

Felix had dutifully come to visit you every day, each time bringing a couple of the members. It had been a welcome distraction from the fading novelty of being hospitalised and the injuries you sustained, but after Han and Jeongin asked the nurses to have a go at giving you a blood withdrawal, Felix had hurried them out of the room.

Not that they minded.

Then there was Seungmin, coolly making jokes about turning off your life support (you weren't even in intensive care), and Lee Know, who had smuggled Dori into his bag to bring to you.

"Dori will kiss it better," he had said seriously (Dori bit you).

Hyunjin spent most of his time sketching and painting over your bandages; it was a welcome gesture from the stark white you'd gotten so used to seeing in the hospital. Even Changbin had taken time off his busy schedule to see you, often coming into the room fresh from the gym or a dance practice.

But no Chan.

Each time they entered, you'd look up in anticipation and barely veiled hope, but it was always wasted. He never showed. Felix told you they'd been trying to persuade him to come and see you, but Chan had refused and shut down. You were a little disappointed and partially relieved at this revelation.

You glance down at the bandages wrapping your forearms now; not exactly a cast, but not a simple wrap either. It's slightly stiff, and you smile at the multitude of silly signatures and drawings that the members and some of your friends had peppered the surface with.

Looking around your living room and then casting a glass-eyed gaze over the kitchen, you inhale deeply. It feels strange to be here. The place is well-worn, lived in, but it feels like you've walked into someone else's home and stood in the middle of the room. It doesn't feel like you live here at all.

Oh well, you think. Time to get settled.

.

And settle you do; by the time the clock hits seven, you're curled up on the couch with a blanket, a bowl of hot soup (courtesy of Lee Know), and a good tv show.

You've turned the lights off and put the lamps on instead; you swear if you see one more bright light you might literally lose your mind.

The dim, golden glow is comforting; it makes you feel warm, and along with the effects of Lee Know's soup, the fluffy blanket, and the light pitter-patter of rain on the window outside, you begin to feel very sleepy. The show you've put on in the background drones on faintly, and for a moment, you revel in the quiet.

Until the doorbell rings.

You groan and heave yourself up from the couch. Standing up, you pause for a few seconds to see if whoever it is will give up and decide to go away.

They don't. The doorbell rings again.

Yawning, you make your way to the door and unlock it, coming face-to-face with none other than Hwang Hyunjin.

"Hyune," you say, surprised.

"Hey," he grins sheepishly, running a hand through his buzzed hair. "Can I come in?"

You step aside and shut the door as he takes his shoes off, shrugging off his rain-spotted jacket. Wordlessly, you sit back down on the couch and gesture for him to do the same. He does.

"How have you been?" You ask him quietly, trying to drape the blanket over yourself once again.

Hyunjin reaches across and tucks the blanket in for you. "I should be the one asking that, don't you think?"

You shrug.

He sighs, leaning back against the couch, and tucks his socked feet up underneath him. "I'm okay."

"Just okay?"

He shifts uncomfortably, like there's something wrong with his insides. "I, um... Have you talked to Chan yet? Has he talked to you since..."

You shake your head. "Why? Aside from the obvious."

Hyunjin exhales. "He's lost his shit."

"What?"

He sits up a little further, repeating himself. "He's lost his shit. He's just- not himself."

You sigh and relax against the cushions, not knowing what to say. You feel a little bit bad, but your stubbornness tells you that Chan should be the one to reach out again first if he's so upset about it.

You tell Hyunjin that, but he just shakes his head.

"One of you is going to have to take the first step to fix this," he says. "How do you feel about it, though?"

"Considering it was my own fault for not looking both ways, and my fault for setting off the whole thing... it still stings."

He nods understandingly. "I figured you might wanna talk about it a little, if Felix hasn't done that already. That's why I came."

You shake your head. "We talked about it a little, but I guess he was mostly there to distract me."

Hyunjin chuckles. "He's good at it too."

You nod. There's silence.

"So you're in love with Chan," he says finally.

Hearing it being said out loud is strange. Like something surreal floating in the air. Not a truth that you've kept buried for so long. Well, not anymore, at least.

Hyunjin's voice snaps you out of your daze. "Do you still love him? You know, after all of this."

You sigh and cast your gaze on the golden light emitting from a nearby lamp. "I don't know. I guess. But it doesn't matter if he doesn't feel the same way."

"Maybe he does," he says earnestly. His skin is honeyed in the dimness of the room.

"He's far too busy for it anyway," you say. You hate the way it sounds like you're unsure. Like you're trying to convince yourself that you're not in love with your best friend.

Hyunjin seems to pick up on this, because he scoots a little closer, stroking a couple of fingers along your blanketed knee. "Even if he doesn't feel the same way, Y/n, it doesn't mean you can't still work it out. You two were inseparable-"

"Yeah, until Chae came along."

"Was she really the reason?"

You sigh and turn to face him, shifting on the couch. "If he really loved me, he would have made an effort to talk to me despite Chae. Like I did. I did everything I could to see him as often as possible," you sigh. "But he didn't do the same thing."

"Maybe he was too afraid to ruin what you both have," Hyunjin says diplomatically.

You scoff. "Well, he shouldn't have worried, because I ruined it for both of us."

He sighs and touches your hand lightly. "Talk to him. We've been trying to convince him to come and see you-"

"No," you say, panicked. "Don't do that."

"Y/n, just- How are you both supposed to work this out if you keep avoiding each other?"

You groan and lean your head on his shoulder. "I don't know. And I want to fix this, Hyune, but I can't face him and have him tell me he doesn't feel the same way. It's better like this."

"Is is worth losing him to preserve your feelings?"

Silence.

"I don't know," you finally admit, voice quiet.

The lamp flickers.

.

In the morning, you wake up sprawled on the couch, the blanket tucked up neatly under your chin. You glance across at the coffee table; your bowl isn't there anymore, and the TV is off. Hyunjin is gone.

Sitting up, you notice the bowl in the sink, and a small bag of something, probably food, on the counter. Thanking your stars that you have good friends, you stand up and stretch.

Your strength is almost fully replenished, and your cuts and bruises have gone from angry reds and pinks to faded purples and browns. They don't hurt as much anymore, and it's easier to move around, so you decide to get some housework done after eating.

The weather outside is still grey and stormy; it rains hard for the first part of the morning. You've woken up quite late, but the sleep must have done you good, because by the time afternoon hits, you've cleaned up your place quite well.

Your phone buzzes, then again, and again; it's the SKZ groupchat, and you smile at the multitude of welcome-home messages flooding in from the guys. Your cheeks warm.

Hanji Quokka 🔥: WELCOME HOMEE Y/NNNNN Kiwi 🥝: Hope you slept well. Seungie 🐶: Don't do that again. Thought you were gonna die. We all got excited for a minute. Lixie Pixie 💫: SEUNGMIN Strong Guy 🐇: SEUNGMIN Lee Doesn't Know 💟: SEUNGMIN

You roll your eyes and your finger moves to press the button to turn your phone off, fighting a smile. Their affection, however chaotic, makes a twinge of warmth settle comfortably in your stomach.

Your phone buzzes again, and you open your messages to see a text from Hyunjin.

Hyune: Feeling any better? Y/n: Yes. Thank you. For last night as well... I didn't even hear you leave. Hyune: Probably a good thing. I reckon you needed the rest. Y/n: Yeah. Hyune: Can I come over tonight? Y/n: Of course.

You turn your phone off then. It seems a little strange, that he sent you a private text rather than just asking how you were in the group chat. But you shrug it off, and decide to continue cleaning up.

You don't notice how dark it's beginning to get; wiping the minimal sweat from your forehead, you quickly run upstairs to change into a fresh set of clothes and wash up.

Hyunjin said he'd come round the same time as yesterday, so you turn all the lights off and put the lamps on again. You like the honeyed wash it coats everything in, softening all harsh corners and edges and covering them in that familiar, golden glow. Warmth emits from their bulbs.

You're about to plop down on the couch and dissociate for a while, or at least until Hyunjin comes over, but the doorbell interrupts your motions.

Huh. That was quick.

It's raining outside again, you notice as you make your way to the door. The comforting pitter-patter fills your senses as your fingertips touch the cold metal of the door handle.

You undo the latch and pull the door open. You expect to see Hyunjin, drops of water clinging to his jacket, a sheepish grin stretched handsomely across his elegant features.

But it's not.

"Chan," you whisper.

a/n: ohohohooo reader is cooked (i think. i haven't decided what the third part will be about. anyways.)

ttokki's taglist: @emilywhyyy @galaxy4489 @hyuneskkami @justsomekpopstuff @wavetohannie @strayingawayy @its-stayville-forever @batty-barty-crouchjr @wickedbutlovely @headfirstfortoro @lov3yv4mps @possum-playground @bear8585 @astraystayyh @m-325 @gnabnahcbby

send a dm, comment under the taglist post, or send an ask to be added !

[drdemonprince]

By now, a majority of Autism researchers and clinicians are aware that the existing assessments for Autism are profoundly flawed. 

They know the standard evaluation of Autism is sexist, with assessors excluding women for reasons like wearing makeup, having a boyfriend, being superficially polite, or not being fixated on suitably ‘masculine’ topics like ancient Roman history or barometric pressure. 

They know Autism evaluations are racist, deeming Black Autistics “oppositionally defiant” or even “borderline” rather than acknowledging any social alienation or sensory pain they’re experiencing, and believing they must be overstating the difficulty they face in moving through the world.

And they certainly know that conventional Autism measures weren’t designed with adult Autistics in mind. Many of us are still asked to make up stories based on paintings of frogs in a toddler’s picture book, when we sit down for assessments at age 20, or 30, or 45 — because all the evaluation methods were written for young kids. 

The data has already proven the far-reaching consequences of using such shoddy measures of Autism. People of color, gender minorities, older adults, and women are diagnosed at later ages, and also go undiagnosed at massive rates. 

A growing population of scientists are admittedly interested in fostering a new literature of what they call “patient-driven” Autism research, but they never stop thinking of us as mere patients, the passive receivers of care rather than the leaders of communities and political movements who are the ought to be the primary authors of the studies about us, and the sole determinants of what our desired outcomes should be. Even when they observe that their work could benefit from a greater Autistic perspective, researchers do so from closed rooms, filled with other professionals who are largely not Autistic, wondering amongst themselves what it is that we want instead of learning to quiet their voices and follow our lead. 

Though many basically well-intentioned Autism researchers believe that Autism assessments need reform, what neurodiversity really needs is to abandon the diagnostic process altogether. If Autism is a benign, neutral, naturally occurring form of human difference that requires acceptance rather than a cure, then there’s no need to diagnose it as if it were a sickness. And if hundreds of thousands of Autistic women, people of color, queer people, and older people have been able to give a voice to ourselves and find one another without having ever been given a label by a professional, then improved professional labeling is not what we need. 

Autistic self-realization is the future of Autism assessment. We hold the collective wisdom, organizing ability, insight, and political power to define who we are. No authority figure should have to sign off on our identities. 

Because psychiatrists fail to diagnose such a large percentage of the Autistic population, many Autism researchers now accept self-identified Autistic adults within their subject pool. Within the peer-reviewed journal Autism in Adulthood, self-realized Autistics often make up the bulk of the participant sample, and they have repeatedly been found to be indistinguishable from their formally diagnosed peers. 

A growing body of research now also considers the presence of Autism-spectrum traits as qualifying for inclusion in many Autism studies. The data makes it quite obvious that Autistic people exist within all human groups, spread all throughout the world, and that a great many people have experiences in common with us who have not been formally diagnosed. This itself reveals that a formal diagnosis is hardly necessary, and that a psychiatric paradigm of accepting self-identification is inevitable. The researchers are increasingly already doing it.

You can read the full essay for free (or have it narrated to you!) at this link.

[haitianhistory]

On Haiti's 220th anniversary

Two hundred and twenty years ago, former slaves and free people of color accomplished the seemingly impossible: defeating one of the most formidable European armies of the day and establishing a new state where bondage, as it existed before 1791, would be forever abolished.

For those who have followed this blog since 2013, you know that I (admin A) have rarely allowed myself any sentimentality when discussing Haitian history. I have tried to present a nuanced portrait of Haiti’s past by addressing the weight of the many isms that have plagued its history (colonialism, racism, neoliberalism…) and by taking a critical look at the role of Haitian leaders throughout all these episodes.

Two hundred and twenty years after the unthinkable, Haiti finds itself without a president, grappling with what seems to be a permanent problem of armed gangs, little security, renewed multifaceted tensions with its Dominican neighbour, and on the brink of a new UN occupation through a Kenyan mission. The young woman who started this blog a decade ago would have said that there are little reasons for us as Haitians to celebrate—not because of a difficulty appreciating the great shoulders on which we stand, but because, at twenty-two years old, I didn’t believe in what I felt was useless romanticism binding us to a distorted past while also blinding us to the reality of the disastrous present.

Today, it’s not so much that I find much to rejoice in given the current state of affairs. It’s that I realize, what is the point of all this if there is no hope? Why this blog, why study the history of Haiti at all, why care about the country? For those of us with family there, why not temporarily send money in the hope of helping them relocate here, there, and anywhere except Haiti? Why not congratulate the complete erosion of Haitian sovereignty, as post-1986 Haiti, and especially Haiti of the last two decades, has shown so vividly the complete utter failure of its foreign-backed governing class?

I don’t know what hope is supposed to look like in this situation. Hope for what? Hope for a change under what conditions, under whose authority? On what would this hope be grounded? Perhaps, despite the best efforts of my twenty-two-year-old self, I am becoming as naive and sentimental as the people I silently criticized then...

Perhaps, however, I recognize that Haiti does matter. Even the most cynical among us would admit that there is something profoundly radical in breaking the bonds of slavery, in affirming that people of African descent could not be stripped of their humanity, that there is something poetic in saying “no” in the face of impressive odds. Newly independent Haiti did not live up to some of the promises of its complicated Revolution. The 1825 French imposition of an indemnity severely affected freshly formed Haiti (beyond the 19th century), but it does not excuse the incompetence of Haitian governments, then and now. Haiti could, may have, and I certainly hope, will change, will remember what 1804 ought to have meant.

Perhaps, especially for the people who currently live in Haiti, particularly the women of all ages who face the constant threats of sexual violence, Haiti has a responsibility to itself, to its unprecedented idealism, to all of us.

Given all these reasons, I find it necessary to maintain a guarded optimism, acknowledging that ideas hold significance and possess the potential to materialize into reality.

[drratiosstudent]

Favourite Quotes from Babel by R. F. Kuang (Part 1, Book I - Book II)

Which seems right to you? Do we try our hardest, as translators, to render ourselves invisible? Or do we remind our reader that what they are reading was not written in their native language?

'That's an impossible question,' said Victoria. 'Either you situate the text in its time and place, or you bring it to where you are, here and now. You're always giving something up.'

Betrayal. Translation means doing violence upon the original, means warping and distorting it for foreign, unintended eyes. So then where does that leave us? How can we conclude, except by acknowledging that an act of translation is then necessarily always an act of betrayal?

---

The poet runs untrammeled across the meadow. The translator dances in shackles.

---

This all hinged on him, Robin realized. The choice was his. Only he could determine the truth, because only he could communicate it to all parties.

But what could he possibly say? He saw the crewman's blistering irritation. He saw the rustling impatience of the other passengers in the queue. They were tired, they were cold, they couldn't understand why they hadn't boarded yet. He felt Professor Lowell's thumb digging a groove into his collarbone, and a thought struck him - a thought so frightening that it made his knees tremble - which was that should he pose too much of a problem, should he stir up trouble, then the Countess of Harcourt might simply leave him behind onshore as well.'

---

There was no question about what had happened. They were both shaken by the sudden realization that they did not belong in this place, that despite their affiliation with the Translation Institute and despite their gowns and pretensions, their bodies were not safe on the streets. They were men at Oxford; they were not Oxford men. 

---

'The first lesson any good translator internalizes is that there exists no one-to-one correlation between words or even concepts from one language to another.'

'Language is not like maths. And even maths differs depending on the language'

---

That is the dilemma. Do we take words as our unit of translation, or do we subordinate accuracy of individual words to the overall spirit of the text?

'I don't understand,' Said Letty. 'Shouldn't a faithful translation of individual words produce an equally faithful text?'

'It would,' said Professor Playfair, 'if, again, words existed in relation to each other in the same way in every language. But they do not. The words schlecht and schlimm both mean "bad" in German, but how do you know when to use one or the other? When do we use fleuve or riviére in French? How do we render the French esprit into English? We ought not merely translate each word on its own, but must rather evoke the sense of how they fit the whole of the passage. But how can that be done, if languages are indeed so different?'

---

'So you see, translators do not so much deliver a message as they rewrite the original. And herein lies the difficulty - rewriting is still writing, and writing always reflects the author's ideology and biases.

'Words mean something quite different when they journey from the palaces of Rome to the tea-rooms of today's Britain.'

Talk about translation difficulties...

'So we must proceeed from the starting assumption that distortion is inevitable. The question is how to distort with deliberation.'

---

'I don't think you two quite understand how hard it is to be a woman here,' said Victoria. 'They're liberal on paper, certainly. But they think so very little of us. Our landlady roots through our things when we're out as if she's searching for evidence that we've taken lovers. Every weakness we display is a testament to the worst theories about us, which is that we're fragile, we're hysterical, and we're too naturally weak-minded to handle the kind of work we're set to do.'

---

'Translators are always being accused of faithlessness,' boomed Professor Playfair. 'So what does that entail, this faithlessness? Fidelity to whom? the text? The audience? The author? Is fidelity separate from style? From Beauty?'

---

Schleiermacher argued that translations should be sufficiently unnatural that they clearly present themselves as foreign texts. He argued there were two options: either the translator leaves the author in peace and moves the reader towards him; or he leaves the readers in peace and moves the author towards him.

---

Languages aren't just made of words. They're modes of looking at the world. They're the keys to civilization. And that's knowledge worth killing for.

---

Words tell stories... (cut off)... Specifically, the history of those words - how they came into use, and how their meanings morphed into what they mean today - tell us just as much about a people, if not more, than any other kind of historical artefact.'

---

'So the history of the word does not describe just a change in language, but a change in an entire social order'

---

Languages are only shifting sets of symbols - stable enough to make mutual discourse possible, but fluid enough to reflect changing Social dynamics. 

---

But not all English words had their roots in such far-flung or noble origins. The curious thing about etymology, they soon learned, was that anything could influence a language, from the consumption habits of the rich and worldly to the so-called vulgar utterances of the poor and wretched. The lowly cants, the supposed secret languages of thieves, vagabonds and foreigners, had contributed such common words such as bilk, booty and bauble.

---

English did not just borrow words from other languages; it was stuffed to the brim with foreign influences, a Frankenstein vernacular. And Robin found it incredible, how this country, whose citizens prided themselves so much on being better than the rest of the world, could not make it through an afternoon tea without borrowed goods.

---

You can't begin to understand Chinese today without also understanding Buddhism, which means understanding Sanskrit. It's like trying to understand multiplication before you know how to draw numbers.

Latin, translation theory, etymology, focus languages, and a new research language - it was an absurdly heavy class load, especially when each professor assigned coursework as if none of the other courses existed. The faculty was utterly unsympathetic.

---

'The Germans have this lovely word, Sitzfleisch,' Professor Playfair said pleasantly when Ramy protested that they had over forty hours of reading a week. 'Translated literally, it means "sitting meat". Which all goes to say, sometimes you need simply to sit on your bottom and get things done.'

---

It's us. Frozen in time, captured in a moment we'll never get back as long as we live. It's wonderful.

Robin, too, thought the photograph looked strange, thought he did not say so aloud. All of their expressions were artificial, masks of faint discomfort. The camera had distorted and flattened the spirit that bound them, and the invisible warmth and camaraderie between them appeared now like a stilted, forced closeness. Photography, he thought, was also a kind of translation, and they had all come out the poorer for it.

Violets cast into crucibles, indeed.

---

History isn't a premade tapestry that we've got to suffer, a closed world with no exit. We can form it. Make it. We just have to choose to make it.

---

But they're not meant to be shared. Would you be content to sit hour after hour with a white man as he asks you the story behind every metaphor, every god's name, so he can pilfer through your people's beliefs for a match-pair that might make a silver bar glow?

---

'Suppose it means more to her than you realise.'

'But it doesn't. I know it doesn't! She's not the slightest bit religious; I mean, she's civilized -'

He whistled. 'That's a loaded word, Letty.'

---

The atmosphere of those days was oppressive. Something had seemed to break between them all - no, break was perhaps too strong a word, for they still clung to each other with the force of people who had no one else. But their bond had twisted in a decidedly hurtful direction. They still spent nearly all their waking moments together, but they dreaded each other's company. Everything was an unintended slight or deliberate offence-'

'They used to find solace in their solidarity, but now they saw each other only as reminders of their own misery.'

---

'Well, how are they going to provide for their families?'

It shamed Robin that he hadn't even considered this.

---

'These currents were unsustainable. The gears of history were turning fast in England. The world was getting smaller, more mechanized, and more unequal, and it was as yet unclear where things would end up, or what that would mean for Babel, or for the Empire itself.'

---

'It should have been distressing. In truth, thought, Robin found it was actually quite easy to put up with any degree of social unrest, as long as one got used to looking away.'

'He didn't mention the family to Mrs Piper or Professor Lovell. He didn't want to dwell on all the things they represented - the fact that for all of his professed allegiance to revolution, for his commitment to equality and to helping those who were without, he had no experience of true poverty at all. He'd seen hard times in Canton, but he had never not known where his next meal might come from or where he would sleep at night. He had never looked at his family and wondered what it might take to keep them alive. For all his identification with the poor orphan Oliver Twist, for all his bitter self-pity, the fact remained that since the day he had set foot in England, he had not once gonna to sleep hungry.'

The next month, he forgot to take the same detour on his way up, but it didn't matter - by then, the little family was already gone.

---

'But realize this, brother. You fly no one's flag. You're free to seek your own harbour. And you can do so much more than tread water.'

---

Fav Quotes:

Part 1, Book I-II

Part 2, Book III

Part 3, Book III-IV

[psychiatry-and-poetry]

Romance, Requests, and Redirection

Part 1 - Romance, Requests, and Redirection | Part 2 - Eris' Reply | AO3 | Nesta Week 2025 Masterpost |

A/N: This is Eris' reply to Nesta's letter (which I wrote for Nesta week linked above), as requested by @aleksandra25cracow. I hope you like it!

Word Count: 590

Dear Nesta,

I must confess, I was puzzled at the correspondence that arrived this morning at the Forest House. I certainly wasn’t expecting a letter bearing the telltale signs of the Night Court to show up at my breakfast table. Even lacking the official insignia, I would recognise a letter from Night, though I can assure you the surprise was a pleasant reprieve from the monotonous court life here in Autumn.

Solstice was another such welcome break, a place where I could enjoy the festivities, though they took place elsewhere, a place I will acknowledge I am not particularly fond of. However, I must admit, the dancing that night was perhaps the jewel in the crown, so to speak. It has been a while since I have been able to dance so freely, to revel in the celebrations as one ought to do but as politicians rarely get the chance to. A night to let my inhibitions down and rid myself of my mask, if only for a fraction of a while with a skilled dance partner is something I will be grateful for. I would be lying if I said I did not enjoy that night thoroughly.

But while I would love to converse at length regarding your love for the noble art, I must confess how pleased I was upon hearing of your interest in exploring Autumn and the wonder it has to behold, despite hearing what troubles you. My court is truly a wondrous place, like no other in Prythian, and though talking about it at length is perhaps one of my favourite pastimes, I will let you see this jewel for yourself.

Regarding your previous letter, I implore you to be careful with your words, lady. Though each court has its own ways of punishing treason, the Night Court’s being no less brutal than any other nor any less creative in the torment, I must ask you to avoid throwing caution to the wind when discussing such matters openly. The fae are never what they seem, and they will certainly grasp any opportunity they can to lie, contrary to the mortal myths I am sure you have heard. We will keep correspondence (we will have to, if you are to visit), but like you, my letters may be cryptic, and I will leave it to you to decipher them (though I have no doubt you will be able to do so without an ounce of difficulty, from the brief glimpse I have gotten of you).

A visit could be arranged, though it will require immense amounts of planning and logistical support from both sides. Despite this, it will be fleeting, and that will have to suffice, if only for now. Though we do not know each other, though we have hardly met, I shall need you to trust me in these upcoming weeks, if you truly mean to visit. We shall have to work together to create a plan so intricate that nothing and no one will be able to deter it. We will need to have contingency plan upon contingency plan, though I can assume this is not news to you. We will be able to talk at length upon your arrival. Rest assured that our conversations will remain confidential at all times. I trust the High Lord and Lady have informed you about the nature of Fae bargains, and the terms of one shall be discussed at length should you see the need for such a measure.

I will await your arrival.

~ Eris Vanserra

A/N: When Eris said “I need you to trust me” the only thing going through my head was Aladdin and how he asked Jasmine to trust him before they went flying on the magic carpet (can you tell it’s one of my favourite Disney movies)

[a-really-big-cat]

once again exasperated and pissed about the climate change argument. I just going to lay down some incoherent and unstructured thoughts rn

the continued difficulty in getting people to accept the reality and harm of anthropogenic climate change has one primary cause imo: the lack of sympathy and perspective that both sides of the argument demonstrate. Neither side seems to want to read the others' literature and both sides have a blistering uncivility towards each other. I see deniers of climate change lump climate scientists together in a massive evil conspiracy by the WEF/NWO/whoever, but I also see the environmental left casually call deniers stupid and evil. What the hell do these sides think this rhetoric is going to accomplish? Do think that belittling someone else's concerns is going to get them to suddenly break free from what you think is a cultlike indoctrination or echo chamber? I literally just read an article that was itself quite calmly and sympathetically explaining how to best support the reality and harm of climate change against one who does not believe, and then I made the tremendous mistake of reading the comments, where, aside from the usual spate of denier critics who insisted that the whole thing was a scam, there was this supremely ugly, ignorant, and patronizing comment: "The most important thing is to use small words and lots of bright colors when talking to these people. Complex concepts and ideas are scary so you need to ease them in, perhaps with cartoon mascots explaining it very, very slowly and multiple times." I wanted to break into this man's house and bite all his furniture; what the fuck.

Then there's the issue I seem to see where the scientists and the deniers always default to treating the other as the outgroup who should only ever be treated as some kind of alien being. There is positively mountains of literature by those who deny climate change all about how it's all a hoax and how you can never trust the establishment (I do wonder why all these different books that say basically the exact same things are needed if it's supposedly so easy to disprove anthropogenic climate change; I increasingly buy the interpretation that this whole literary industry is a money-making scheme). Yet it seems, alarmingly, that it is very rare for public educators and scientists to write books which actually engage with and respond to the fears and criticisms of climate change deniers. Where is the inter-literary dialogue? Where are the respondeo? Like, there are lots of just plain climate science books, but they are generally written in a very technical, very inscrutable style, and with an assumption that anyone who might pick them up already accepts the reality of climate change; there seems to be very little consideration from climate scientists and public educators about actually writing books that do what the denial side does.

The science side—I say the "science side" but really I mean the science journalism and politics front of that side—has for decades now made use of a rhetorical strategy that I believe has been incredibly harmful to the public's trust in their expertise. This is the often mocked "we have only X number of years before..." Before what, exactly? The language used is sensationalist and urgent, "catastrophe", "climate chaos", "ecological disaster", but my major grievance is that there's frequently little in the way of specific details except in more dense, harder to read, and more technical documents such as the IPCC reports. In public education and popular science texts, it's vital to include the reasons for why someone ought to take this issue seriously, not just rely on your status as a science authority figure to expect people to obey you. But the bigger problem is how these estimates often appeared, to the layman's eye, to be continually disproven. While acknowledging the obvious fact that such estimates which are based on current metrics naturally render themselves outdated once action is taken in response to them, I recall reading that the purpose of this aggressive, dramatic rhetoric is meant to get people to take the issue seriously; and believe me, people should take it seriously. But I believe that mixing in unrepresentative rhetoric like this does the exact opposite; it causes people to take the model of anthropogenic climate change less seriously, because, not being scientists themselves and not being aware of what is actually being done right now to mitigate climate change, they interpret these as absolute claims which would always come true. It's my opinion that scientists should avoid making "number of years" claims like this, in any case, just because they are too liable to being seen as false.

I have a broader grievance with science reporting; which is the constant vacillating in presentation between "science as objective fact" and "science as an uncertain but always improving method of inquiry". So much damage is done by headlines which say things like "Study shows that X is true", which gives people the impression that the study has "proved" that X is true, when that is not how science works; the most we can say is that a study strongly suggests that X is true. And even then that is only assuming that the study is well-designed and the methodology is sound. It's inevitable that laypeople are going to start doubting the authority of scientists when headlines get written as if anything was proven.

If you want to hear my own, plain opinions: anthropogenic climate change is 100% a real phenomenon, and it is certainly a net harmful one. The reason I believe it is real is very simple: the mechanism of the greenhouse effect is easy to understand and fairly self-demonstrating. We also know that burning fossil fuels releases CO2 and other greenhouse gases. The amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is increasing at a rapid rate, and since there's no other obvious cause, we can confidently say that the rate of increase is due to the human activity. So much of the popular argument over climate change focuses on ice cores and pre-industrial records of temperature, which I see as all a pointless distraction; the annual temperatures throughout earlier history is not worth focusing on as a lynchpin of the evidence for global warming, because it seems frankly unnecessary (although I have in my own life noticed the decreasing length of winter in my region). I take into account the harmful effects of increasing CO2 levels on the biosphere, whether they are related to the actual warming climate or not: ocean acidification, for example. Taking all this into account, I think that anthropogenic climate change is a serious threat to human and biosphere well-being which we have the ability to mitigate and adapt, and so we must do so; but in light of Catholic social teaching we cannot lose sight of basic morality and human rights in our efforts to combat it.

[hautevaux]

@sacredflorist || 𝕃𝕀𝕂𝔼𝔻 for a 𝕊𝕋𝔸ℝ𝕋𝔼ℝ

Love for ones chosen field of work was oft described as a way to never work a day in ones life; an adoration that entirely saps away the exhaustion and woe of repetitive tasks and elongated hours. Burnout, however, snuck up upon a person when least expected - quietly, subtly, with a gentle embrace followed by a suffocating weight upon shoulders and a mind that simply couldn't concentrate.

That very morning, Vaux had been sat silently 'pon one of the couches at the back of the store, looking directly forwards into one of the mirrors of grand size at himself; his mind reeled with the sheer scale of requests in which he had to complete, the plans and designs of nigh countless commissions resting just out of his line of sight 'pon a table. He wants to look at none of them, wishes to not acknowledge their existence for the longer he did so the more fault he found within them, the more anger, the more agitation toward his presently lacking creative state.

Once his dear staff arrived, Vaux had already decided to shove absolutely everything aside for the day and busy himself with an altogether different endeavour. He busied himself in the back of the store, collected up the piles of clothing he had created from those that had been donated, from spare material, from things he had gathered for himself in donation - and placed all within tote bags ere leaving in all but a pure flurry.

Heading below the plate was, perhaps, not something many would welcome as an outing, especially not one intended to be relaxing in comparison to ones usual daily rotations. For Vaux, however, he found himself growing further excited as he headed towards the train station - bags hanging from both shoulders - subtle smile 'pon his pale expression. Once tickets had been purchased and he had silently seated himself, the tailor drew his phone out of his pocket and decided to send a swift message to one he knew, just as a polite gesture to let her know he was swinging by for a visit.

[ MSG - Aerith xo ] Good morning, darling! I hope you're well! I'm on the train heading down, ought be at the station soon enough. xoxo

[ MSG - Aerith xo ] I've clothing for the children and some chocolate for you - and the DIRE need to get away from the hustle and bustle of everything. xoxo

[ MSG - Aerith xo ] Honestly, darling, I'm so very stressed and tired that the only thing I could think to do to even try and pick up my mood was to come and see your lovely face xoxo

Slipping his phone back into his pocket, Vaux concentrated on counting the stops in which came into view one at a time until the one he wanted came into view - his person alighting with only a small amount of difficulty given the amount he carried. Slow on his feet (- flat, military style boots styled with his outfit-), he retraced steps in which he had done before, recalling memories in which would guide him forward to pathways that were familiar.

He smiles warmly to those he passed, saying hello to those he had met before while booted feet meandered through winding pathways, silently hopeful that he would run into his dear companion along the way.

[fideidefenswhore]

Could I ask you two questions please?

One, what do you make of Chapuys's report that Anne's aunt praised Mary as such a good girl she deserved total respect anyway? By the sounds of things, with Mary refusing to acknowledge Anne, not wanting to eat meals unless she came above Elizabeth, all that, she sounds as if she gave the servants a lot of stress and difficulty, because Mary was still above them but they couldn't obey her but disobey the King. It sounds more Chapuys's corny spin on things, where Mary's so awesome even Anne's family love her. I don't believe Anne's aunt really would've felt Mary was "good" in that situation, and I don't get who was listening to her say that who then reported it to Chapuys. Are they saying Mary heard it and told him, or he had spies there too?

"[...] nothing is done without the previous consent of the sister of Anne de Boullan's father, the lady to whom the keeping of her has lately been entrusted. I am told that the duke of Norfolk and the brother of Anne had the other day high words with the said governess because, as they thought, she treated the Princess with too great kindness and regard, when she ought to deal with her as a regular bastard that she was. "

So far, so plausible. This seems to fit what we know of both Norfolk and George Boleyn's characters. It is perhaps, interesting, that rather than her most immediate family (which would be, as mentioned above, Thomas Boleyn), the family firm feels the matter is of such great importance that Anne Shelton needs to be counseled and guided by its highest-ranking male member, Norfolk, alongside the male relative Anne was closest to: George.

It's a very high-handed move ('high words', as the report goes); and I don't think it's a bridge too far to speculate that these men were sent by AB personally to exhort Shelton, in person, to follow a stricter policy when it came to Mary, although it does contradict what we know about the supposedly extremely hostile relationship between Anne and Norfolk (because, if Anne sent him, that would suggest a level of trust on a sensitive matter...perhaps George was Anne's choice, and Norfolk, Henry's? Iirc it was Henry that sent Norfolk to Mary's household of Beaulieu to dissolve it and tell her she would be removed to Elizabeth's).

But as always, it's important to be careful when parsing a primary source—what exactly is Chapuys reporting here? Not that they said this, but that they thought this. Chapuys often reports what he believes these players thought:

"The King’s mistress [...] considering that her singular beauty, goodness, and virtue, might possibly induce the King to change his purpose, and that if the Princess were to attend Court, and be seen there continually, she might daily gain the hearts and favour of the courtiers, [will not] allow her to come [attend her at Court]." Jan 1534, Chapuys to Charles V

So, that's become words in her mouth, and/or thoughts in her mind, in fiction, and yet Chapuys cannot read her mind, and he in fact, did not report that this was something Anne said—which isn't entirely obvious, because he's saying this very definitively ('considering that'), but 'considering' is not 'said'. Ergo, this is Chapuys' own speculation on her motivations (the unlikelihood of Anne praising her as she's planning to isolate her, notwithstanding) for the actually definitive part of this sentence: "she has not allowed her to come [to court]".

One might ask why such a long-winded explanation of her motivations would be necessary here, and the answer is that months earlier, he's already rather declaratively informed Charles V that Anne will force Mary to attend her at court:

"I hear [this accursed Anne] has lately boasted that she will make of the Princess a maid of honour in her Royal household [...]"

This has essentially tangled Chapuys within his own cross-hairs: if Anne has a habit of ''boasting" (maybe played that card a bit too early...) that she will take actions that she doesn't actually end up taking, then (which, by his own account, is now apparent—again, depending on how credulous the reader is of his account) why would Charles V take any of her other reported threats seriously? Not to mention, the above was from a dispatch where he also exhorts his master that he can "hardly avoid making war upon this king and kingdom".

He has perhaps accordingly learned the risk of overconfidence on reporting what was said, and retreated into the plausible deniability of speculating the motivations, (ie, what was thought) behind what was said.

Anyway, the rest of the report in question:

"The lady answered that even if [...] she was the bastard daughter of a poor gentleman, her kindness, her modesty, and her virtues called forth all respect and honour. "

Allowing for some possible exaggeration ("I will still accord her the respect owed to the King's natural child", might've been closer to the actual line), I do find this plausible, actually. It's important to remember that most nobles were in a habit of reverence towards Mary; it would be difficult to relinquish that even if instructed to do so. And Shelton was probably not entirely motivated by altruism for saying so— fortune was fickle, HVIII himself had proved fickle, and the Queen, while expecting a son, could just as easily have another daughter, or a stillbirth, or even, as would have been brought home for Anne Shelton, as she reached maturity and heard the news of the (legally considered) former Queen, childbed death. Who was to say Henry would not reverse what he had done regarding Mary, had Anne not had a son? We can look at the timing of this report, as well (February 1534), and place this statement before the Succession Act was passed and before the Pope has declared on the marriage between COA and Henry.

Also, as to why this praise of her in light of the stress and difficulty she caused the servants, Mary has only been in the household for two months. Chapuys will advise her to be more outwardly defiant, and then apologize for having advised her so once Shelton becomes fed up of that enough to forcibly place her into an 'inferior' (leather, not velvet, and in the context of, she had tried to hijack the one set up for Elizabeth, and was refusing to travel in a lesser one— on a future, similar transfer between households, Chapuys reports that Mary "allowed the little one to travel by land", opting to travel by barge, instead) litter (ie, coach):

"Last Thursday, upon the Princess, Your Majesty's cousin, refusing to accompany this King's bastard daughter, who was being conducted to another house fixed for her residence, she was, by certain gentlemen deputed for the purpose, against her will and by sheer force, placed in a chaise (lictiere) with Anne's aunt, being in this manner obliged and compelled to pay her court to the said bastard;—not, however, without her having previously and publicly protested against the violence used with her, and declaring all the time that the act being an involuntary one could in nowise prejudice her right and title for the future. I should never have advised the Princess to go to such an extremity for fear of her over-irritating the King, her father, and giving him occasion and excuse for treating her worse than he is doing at present, and playing her some bad trick, in order to please his mistress Anne, who never ceases day and night plotting against her."

(By then, it seems the blinders have gone down fractionally...it's finally 'for fear of over-irritating the King', not Anne, although of course he still maintains any 'occasion for worse treatment' would mainly be done to please his 'mistress'. Also worth noting, by the date of the above report, the Act of Succession has passed, and Shelton has already been instructed to not afford Mary any precedence over Elizabeth, and, according to the same earlier report, to not allow her any privilege 'without the previous consent of [Thomas Boleyn]'.)

Tl; dr, at the time of the 'bastard daughter of a poor gentleman' report, matters of the succession were arguably still in a state of flux, nothing definitive had been passed besides the annulment (besides which, bona fides was the expected principle of some) as far as English law, and it wouldn't necessarily be politic to alienate a potential future heir to the throne. The world in which Mary was not to be considered such was still a decidedly new one.

It's fair to speculate on the likelihood of whether or not Shelton would've spoken so kindly of Mary had Anne already had a son (although, in those circumstances, Mary surely would not be sent to his household), and/or had the Pope declared for Henry by this point.

To your point, while Chapuys does not name a source ("I am told"); it's fair to assume one (or several) of the servants of Elizabeth's household were paid by him to send him intelligence of visits by significant figures (such as, Norfolk and George Boleyn), and of what was discussed during said visits.

Here it ends:

"The Princess [...] is so armed with patience that she bears her troubles with wonderful constancy and resignation, placing all her confidence in God, the true protector of good, right, and justice, and likewise in Your Majesty, so much so that I doubt whether she would put on a better face in prosperity than she is putting on now in the midst of her troubles. May God grant that such magnanimity on her part do not over-irritate this accursed lady, and prompt her to make haste and carry her detestable thoughts into execution."

The impression Chapuys wants to make here must be that Mary is in danger, whether or not she is outwardly defiant or 'magnanimous'. If she's defiant, she will be punished, and if she's 'magnanimous', she will be baited into being the former.

[dailyanarchistposts]

Chapter I. Of the Economic Science.

2. — Inadequacy of theories and criticisms.

We will record first an important observation: the contending parties agree in acknowledging a common authority, whose support each claims, -SCIENCE.

Plato, a utopian, organized his ideal republic in the name of science, which, through modesty and euphemism, he called philosophy. Aristotle, a practical man, refuted the Platonic utopia in the name of the same philosophy. Thus the social war has continued since Plato and Aristotle. The modern socialists refer all things to science one and indivisible, but without power to agree either as to its content, its limits, or its method; the economists, on their side, affirm that social science in no wise differs from political economy.

It is our first business, then, to ascertain what a science of society must be.

Science, in general, is the logically arranged and systematic knowledge of that which IS.

Applying this idea to society, we will say: Social science is the logically arranged and systematic knowledge, not of that which society has been, nor of that which it will be, but of that which it IS in its whole life; that is, in the sum total of its successive manifestations: for there alone can it have reason and system. Social science must include human order, not alone in such or such a period of duration, nor in a few of its elements; but in all its principles and in the totality of its existence: as if social evolution, spread throughout time and space, should find itself suddenly gathered and fixed in a picture which, exhibiting the series of the ages and the sequence of phenomena, revealed their connection and unity. Such must be the science of every living and progressive reality; such social science indisputably is.

It may be, then, that political economy, in spite of its individualistic tendency and its exclusive affirmations, is a constituent part of social science, in which the phenomena that it describes are like the starting-points of a vast triangulation and the elements of an organic and complex whole. From this point of view, the progress of humanity, proceeding from the simple to the complex, would be entirely in harmony with the progress of science; and the conflicting and so often desolating facts, which are today the basis and object of political economy, would have to be considered by us as so many special hypotheses, successively realized by humanity in view of a superior hypothesis, whose realization would solve all difficulties, and satisfy socialism without destroying political economy. For, as I said in my introduction, in no case can we admit that humanity, however it expresses itself, is mistaken.

Let us now make this clearer by facts.

The question now most disputed is unquestionably that of the organization of labor.

As John the Baptist preached in the desert, Repent ye so the socialists go about proclaiming everywhere this novelty old as the world, Organize labor, though never able to tell what, in their opinion, this organization should be. However that may be, the economists have seen that this socialistic clamor was damaging their theories: it was, indeed, a rebuke to them for ignoring that which they ought first to recognize, — labor. They have replied, therefore, to the attack of their adversaries, first by maintaining that labor is organized, that there is no other organization of labor than liberty to produce and exchange, either on one’s own personal account, or in association with others, — in which case the course to be pursued has been prescribed by the civil and commercial codes. Then, as this argument served only to make them the laughing-stock of their antagonists, they assumed the offensive; and, showing that the socialists understood nothing at all themselves of this organization that they held up as a scarecrow, they ended by saying that it was but a new socialistic chimera, a word without sense, — an absurdity. The latest writings of the economists are full of these pitiless conclusions.

Nevertheless, it is certain that the phrase organization of labor contains as clear and rational a meaning as these that follow: organization of the workshop, organization of the army, organization of police, organization of charity, organization of war. In this respect, the argument of the economists is deplorably irrational. No less certain is it that the organization of labor cannot be a utopia and chimera; for at the moment that labor, the supreme condition of civilization, begins to exist, it follows that it is already submitted to an organization, such as it is, which satisfies the economists, but which the socialists think detestable.

There remains, then, relatively to the proposal to organize labor formulated by socialism, this objection, — that labor is organized. Now, this is utterly untenable, since it is notorious that in labor, supply, demand, division, quantity, proportion, price, and security, nothing, absolutely nothing is regulated; on the contrary, everything is given up to the caprices of free-will; that is, to chance.

As for us, guided by the idea that we have formed of social science, we shall affirm, against the socialists and against the economists, not that labor must he organized, nor that it is organized but that it is being organized.

Labor, we say, is being organized: that is, the process of organization has been going on from the beginning of the world, and will continue till the end. Political economy teaches us the primary elements of this organization; but socialism is right in asserting that, in its present form, the organization is inadequate and transitory; and the whole mission of science is continually to ascertain, in view of the results obtained and the phenomena in course of development, what innovations can be immediately effected.

Socialism and political economy, then, while waging a burlesque war, pursue in reality the same idea, — the organization of labor.

But both are guilty of disloyalty to science and of mutual calumny, when on the one hand political economy, mistaking for science its scraps of theory, denies the possibility of further progress; and when socialism, abandoning tradition, aims at reestablishing society on undiscoverable bases.

Thus socialism is nothing but a profound criticism and continual development of political economy; and, to apply here the celebrated aphorism of the school, Nihil est in intellectu, quod non prius fuerit in sensu, there is nothing in the socialistic hypotheses which is not duplicated in economic practice. On the other hand, political economy is but an impertinent rhapsody, so long as it affirms as absolutely valid the facts collected by Adam Smith and J. B. Say.

Another question, no less disputed than the preceding one, is that of usury, or lending at interest.

Usury, or in other words the price of use, is the emolument, of whatever nature, which the proprietor derives from the loan of his property. Quidquid sorti accrescit usura est, say the theologians. Usury, the foundation of credit, was one of the first of the means which social spontaneity employed in its work of organization, and whose analysis discloses the profound laws of civilization. The ancient philosophers and the Fathers of the Church, who must be regarded here as the representatives of socialism in the early centuries of the Christian era, by a singular fallacy, — which arose however from the paucity of economic knowledge in their day, — allowed farm-rent and condemned interest on money, because, as they believed, money was unproductive. They distinguished consequently between the loan of things which are consumed by use — among which they included money — and the loan of things which, without being consumed, yield a product to the user.

The economists had no difficulty in showing, by generalizing the idea of rent, that in the economy of society the action of capital, or its productivity, was the same whether it was consumed in wages or retained the character of an instrument; that, consequently, it was necessary either to prohibit the rent of land or to allow interest on money, since both were by the same title payment for privilege, indemnity for loan. It required more than fifteen centuries to get this idea accepted, and to reassure the consciences that had been terrified by the anathemas pronounced by Catholicism against usury. But finally the weight of evidence and the general desire favored the usurers: they won the battle against socialism; and from this legitimation of usury society gained some immense and unquestionable advantages. Under these circumstances socialism, which had tried to generalize the law enacted by Moses for the Israelites alone, Non foeneraberis proximo tuo, sed alieno, was beaten by an idea which it had accepted from the economic routine, — namely, farm-rent, — elevated into the theory of the productivity of capital.

But the economists in their turn were less fortunate, when they were afterwards called upon to justify farm-rent in itself, and to establish this theory of the product of capital. It may be said that, on this point, they have lost all the advantage they had at first gained against socialism.

Undoubtedly — and I am the first to recognize it — the rent of land, like that of money and all personal and real property, is a spontaneous and universal fact, which has its source in the depths of our nature, and which soon becomes, by its natural development, one of the most potent means of organization. I shall prove even that interest on capital is but the materialization of the apllorism, All labor should leave an excess. But in the face of this theory, or rather this fiction, of the productivity of capital, arises another thesis no less certain, which in these latter days has struck the ablest economists: it is that all value is born of labor, and is composed essentially of wages; in other words, that no wealth has its origin in privilege, or acquires any value except through work; and that, consequently, labor alone is the source of revenue among men. How, then, reconcile the theory of farm-rent or productivity of capital — a theory confirmed by universal custom, which conservative political economy is forced to accept but cannot justify — with this other theory which shows that value is normally composed of wages, and which inevitably ends, as we shall demonstrate, in an equality in society between net product and raw product?

The socialists have not wasted the opportunity. Starting with the principle that labor is the source of all income, they began to call the holders of capital to account for their farm-rents and emoluments; and, as the economists won the first victory by generalizing under a common expression farm-rent and usury, so the socialists have taken their revenge by causing the seignorial rights of capital to vanish before the still more general principle of labor. Property has been demolished from top to bottom: the economists could only keep silent; but, powerless to arrest itself in this new descent, socialism has slipped clear to the farthest boundaries of communistic utopia, and, for want of a practical solution, society is reduced to a position where it can neither justify its tradition, nor commit itself to experiments in which the least mistake would drive it backward several thousand years.

In such a situation what is the mandate of science?

Certainly not to halt in an arbitrary, inconceivable, and impossible juste milieu; it is to generalize further, and discover a third principle, a fact, a superior law, which shall explain the fiction of capital and the myth of property, and reconcile them with the theory which makes labor the origin of all wealth. This is what socialism, if it wishes to proceed logically, must undertake. In fact, the theory of the real productivity of labor, and that of the fictitious productivity of capital, are both essentially economical: socialism has endeavored only to show the contradiction between them, without regard to experience or logic; for it appears to be as destitute of the one as of the other. Now, in law, the litigant who accepts the authority of a title in one particular must accept it in all; it is not allowable to divide the documents and proofs. Had socialism the right to decline the authority of political economy in relation to usury, when it appealed for support to this same authority in relation to the analysis of value? By no means. All that socialism could demand in such a case was, either that political economy should be directed to reconcile its theories, or that it might be itself intrusted with this difficult task.

The more closely we examine these solemn discussions, the more clearly we see that the whole trouble is due to the fact that one of the parties does not wish to see, while the other refuses to advance.

It is a principle of our law that no one can be deprived of his property except for the sake of general utility, and in consideration of a fair indemnity payable in advance.

This principle is eminently an economic one; for, on the one hand, it assumes the right of eminent domain of the citizen expropriated, whose consent, according to the democratic spirit of the social compact, is necessarily presupposed. On the other hand, the indemnity, or the price of the article taken, is fixed, not by the intrinsic value of the article, but by the general law of commerce, — supply and demand; in a word, by opinion. Expropriation in the name of society may be likened to a contract of convenience, agreed to by each with all; not only then must the price be paid, but the convenience also must be paid for: and it is thus, in reality, that the indemnity is estimated. If the Roman legists had seen this analogy, they undoubtedly would have hesitated less over the question of expropriation for the sake of public utility.

Such, then, is the sanction of the social right of expropriation: indemnity.

Now, practically, not only is the principle of indemnity not applied in all cases where it ought to be, but it is impossible that it should be so applied. Thus, the law which established railways provided indemnity for the lands to be occupied by the rails; it did nothing for the multitude of industries dependent upon the previous method of conveyance, whose losses far exceeded the value of the lands whose owners received compensation. Similarly, when the question of indemnifying the manufacturers of beet-root sugar was under consideration, it occurred to no one that the State ought to indemnify also the large number of laborers and employees who earned their livelihood in the beet-root industry, and who were, perhaps, to be reduced to want. Nevertheless, it is certain, according to the idea of capital and the theory of production, that as the possessor of land, whose means of labor is taken from him by the railroad, has a right to be indemnified, so also the manufacturer, whose capital is rendered unproductive by the same railroad, is entitled to indemnification. Why, then, is he not indemnified? Alas! because to indemnify him is impossible. With such a system of justice and impartiality society would be, as a general thing, unable to act, and would return to the fixedness of Roman justice. There must be victims. The principle of indemnity is consequently abandoned; to one or more classes of citizens the State is inevitably bankrupt.

At this point the socialists appear. They charge that the sole object of political economy is to sacrifice the interests of the masses and create privileges; then, finding in the law of expropriation the rudiment of an agrarian law, they suddenly advocate universal expropriation; that is, production and consumption in common.

But here socialism relapses from criticism into utopia, and its incapacity becomes freshly apparent in its contradictions. If the principle of expropriation for the sake of public utility, carried to its logical conclusion, leads to a complete reorganization of society, before commencing the work the character of this new organization must be understood; now, socialism, I repeat, has no science save a few bits of physiology and political economy. Further, it is necessary in accordance with the principle of indemnity, if not to compensate citizens, at least to guarantee to them the values which they part with; it is necessary, in short, to insure them against loss. Now, outside of the public fortune, the management of which it demands, where will socialism find security for this same fortune?

It is impossible, in sound and honest logic, to escape this circle. Consequently the communists, more open in their dealings than certain other sectarians of flowing and pacific ideas, decide the difficulty; and promise, the power once in their hands, to expropriate all and indemnify and guarantee none. At bottom, that would be neither unjust nor disloyal. Unfortunately, to burn is not to reply, as the interesting

Desmoulins said to Robespierre; and such a discussion ends always in fire and the guillotine. Here, as everywhere, two rights, equally sacred, stand in the presence of each other, the right of the citizen and the right of the State; it is enough to say that there is a superior formula which reconciles the socialistic utopias and the mutilated theories of political economy, and that the problem is to discover it. In this emergency what are the contending parties doing? Nothing. We might say rather that they raise questions only to get an opportunity to redress injuries. What do I say? The questions are not even understood by them; and, while the public is considering the sublime problems of society and human destiny, the professors of social science, orthodox and heretics, do not agree on principles. Witness the question which occasioned these inquiries, and which its authors certainly understand no better than its disparagers, — the relation of profits and wages.

What! an Academy of economists has offered for competition a question the terms of which it does not understand! How, then, could it have conceived the idea?

Well! I know that my statement is astonishing and incredible; but it is true. Like the theologians, who answer metaphysical problems only by myths and allegories, which always reproduce the problems but never solve them, the economists reply to the questions which they ask only by relating how they were led to ask them: should they conceive that it was possible to go further, they would cease to be economists.

For example, what is profit? That which remains for the manager after he has paid all the expenses. Now, the expenses consist of the labor performed and the materials consumed; or, in fine, wages. What, then, is the wages of a workingman? The least that can be given him; that is, we do not know. What should be the price of the merchandise put upon the market by the manager? The highest that he can obtain; that is, again, we do not know. Political economy prohibits the supposition that the prices of merchandise and labor can be fixed, although it admits that they can be estimated; and that for the reason, say the economists, that estimation is essentially an arbitrary operation, which never can lead to sure and certain conclusions. How, then, shall we find the relation between two unknowns which, according to political economy, cannot be determined? Thus political economy proposes insolvable problems; and yet we shall soon see that it must propose them, and that our century must solve them. That is why I said that the Academy of Moral Sciences, in offering for competition the question of the relation of profits and wages, spoke unconsciously, spoke prophetically.

But it will be said, Is it not true that, if labor is in great demand and laborers are scarce, wages will rise, while profits on the other hand will decrease; that if, in the press of competition, there is an excess of production, there will be a stoppage and forced sales, consequently no profit for the manager and a danger of idleness for the laborer; that then the latter will offer his labor at a reduced price; that, if a machine is invented, it will first extinguish the fires of its rivals; then, a monopoly established, and the laborer made dependent on the employer, profits and wages will be inversely proportional? Cannot all these causes, and others besides, be studied, ascertained, counterbalanced, etc.?

Oh, monographs, histories! — we have been saturated with them since the days of Adam Smith and J. B. Say, and they are scarcely more than variations of these authors’ words.

But it is not thus that the question should be understood, although the Academy has given it no other meaning. The relation of profits end wages should be considered in an absolute sense, and not from the inconclusive point of view of the accidents of commerce and the division of interests: two things which must ultimately receive their interpretation. Let me explain myself.

Considering producer and consumer as a single individual, whose recompense is naturally equal to his product; then dividing this product into two parts, one which rewards the producer for his outlay, another which represents his profit, according to the axiom that all labor should leave an excess, -we have to determine the relation of one of these parts to the other. This done, it will be easy to deduce the ratio of the fortunes of these two classes of men, employers and wage-laborers, as well as account for all commercial oscillations. This will be a series of corollaries to add to the demonstration.

Now, that such a relation may exist and be estimated, there must necessarily be a law, internal or external, which governs wages and prices; and since, in the present state of things, wages and prices vary and oscillate continually, we must ask what are the general facts, the causes, which make value vary and oscillate, and within what limits this oscillation takes place.

But this very question is contrary to the accepted principles; for whoever says oscillation necessarily supposes a mean direction toward which value’s centre of gravity continually tends; and when the Academy asks that we determine the oscillations of profit and wages, it asks thereby that we determine value. Now that is precisely what the gentlemen of the Academy deny: they are unwilling to admit that, if value is variable, it is for that very reason determinable; that variability is the sign and condition of determinability. They pretend that value, ever varying, can never be determined. This is like maintaining that, given the number of oscillations of a pendulum per second, their amplitude, and the latitude and elevation of the spot where the experiment is performed, the length of the pendulum cannot be determined because the pendulum is in motion. Such is political economy’s first article of faith.

As for socialism, it does not appear to have understood the question, or to be concerned about it. Among its many organs, some simply and merely put aside the problem by substituting division for distribution, — that is, by banishing number and measure from the social organism: others relieve themselves of the embarrassment by applying universal suffrage to the wages question. It is needless to say that these platitudes find dupes by thousands and hundreds of thousands.

The condemnation of political economy has been formulated by Malthus in this famous passage: —

A man who is born into a world already occupied, his family unable to support him, and society not requiring his labor, — such a man, I say, has not the least right to claim any nourishment whatever: he is really one too many on the earth. At the great banquet of Nature there is no plate laid for him. Nature commands him to take himself away, and she will not be slow to put her order into execution. [6]

This then is the necessary, the fatal, conclusion of political economy, — a conclusion which I shall demonstrate by evidence hitherto unknown in this field of inquiry, — Death to him who does not possess!

In order better to grasp the thought of Malthus, let us translate it into philosophical propositions by stripping it of its rhetorical gloss: —

“Individual liberty, and property, which is its expression, are economical data; equality and solidarity are not.

“Under this system, each one by himself, each one for himself: labor, like all merchandise, is subject to fluctuation: hence the risks of the proletariat.

“Whoever has neither income nor wages has no right to demand anything of others: his misfortune falls on his own head; in the game of fortune, luck has been against him.”

From the point of view of political economy these propositions are irrefutable; and Malthus, who has formulated them with such alarming exactness, is secure against all reproach. From the point of view of the conditions of social science, these same propositions are radically false, and even contradictory.

The error of Malthus, or rather of political economy, does not consist in saying that a man who has nothing to eat must die; or in maintaining that, under the system of individual appropriation, there is no course for him who has neither labor nor income but to withdraw from life by suicide, unless he prefers to be driven from it by starvation: such is, on the one hand, the law of our existence; such is, on the other, the consequence of property; and M. Rossi has taken altogether too much trouble to justify the good sense of Malthus on this point. I suspect, indeed, that M. Rossi, in making so lengthy and loving an apology for Malthus, intended to recommend political economy in the same way that his fellow-countryman Machiavel, in his book entitled “The Prince,” recommended despotism to the admiration of the world. In pointing out misery as the necessary condition of industrial and commercial absolutism, M. Rossi seems to say to us: There is your law, your justice, your political economy; there is property.

But Gallic simplicity does not understand artifice; and it would have been better to have said to France, in her immaculate tongue: The error of Malthus, the radical vice of political economy, consists, in general terms, in affirming as a definitive state a transitory condition, — namely, the division of society into patricians and proletaires; and, particularly, in saying that in an organized, and consequently solidaire, society, there may be some who possess, labor, and consume, while others have neither possession, nor labor, nor bread. Finally Malthus, or political economy, reasons erroneously when seeing in the faculty of indefinite reproduction — which the human race enjoys in neither greater nor less degree than all animal and vegetable species — a permanent danger of famine; whereas it is only necessary to show the necessity, and consequently the existence, of a law of equilibrium between population and production.

In short, the theory of Malthus — and herein lies the great merit of this writer, a merit which none of his colleagues has dreamed of attributing to him — is a reductio ad absurdum of all political economy.

As for socialism, that was summed up long since by Plato and Thomas More in a single word, UTOPIA, — that is, no-place, a chimera.

Nevertheless, for the honor of the human mind and that justice may be done to all, this must be said: neither could economic and legislative science have had any other beginning than they did have, nor can society remain in this original position.

Every science must first define its domain, produce and collect its materials: before system, facts; before the age of art, the age of learning. The economic science, subject like every other to the law of time and the conditions of experience, before seeking to ascertain how things ought to take place in society, had to tell us how things do take place; and all these processes which the authors speak of so pompously in their books as laws, principles, and theories, in spite of their incoherence and inconsistency, had to be gathered up with scrupulous diligence, and described with strict impartiality. The fulfilment of this task called for more genius perhaps, certainly for more self-sacrifice, than will be demanded by the future progress of the science.

If, then, social economy is even yet rather an aspiration towards the future than a knowledge of reality, it must be admitted that the elements of this study are all included in political economy; and I believe that I express the general sentiment in saying that this opinion has become that of the vast majority of minds. The present finds few defenders, it is true; but the disgust with utopia is no less universal: and everybody understands that the truth lies in a formula which shall reconcile these two terms: CONSERVATION and MOTION.

Thus, thanks to Adam Smith, J. B. Say, Ricardo, and Malthus, as well as their rash opponents, the mysteries of fortune, atria Ditis, are uncovered; the power of capital, the oppression of the laborer, the machinations of monopoly, illumined at all points, shun the public gaze. Concerning the facts observed and described by the economists, we reason and conjecture: abusive laws, iniquitous customs, respected so long as the obscurity which sustained their life lasted, with difficulty dragged to the daylight, are expiring beneath the general reprobation; it is suspected that the government of society must be learned no longer from an empty ideology, after the fashion of the Contrat social, but, as Montesquieu foresaw, from the relation of things; and already a Left of eminently socialistic tendencies, composed of savants, magistrates, legists, professors, and even capitalists and manufacturers, — all born representatives and defenders of privilege, — and of a million of adepts, is forming in the nation above and outside of parliamentary opinions, and seeking, by an analysis of economic facts, to capture the secrets of the life of societies.

Let us represent political economy, then, as an immense plain, strewn with materials prepared for an edifice. The laborers await the signal, full of ardor, and burning to commence the work: but the architect has disappeared without leaving the plan. The economists have stored their memories with many things: unhappily they have not the shadow of an estimate. They know the origin and history of each piece; what it cost to make it; what wood makes the best joists, and what clay the best bricks; what has been expended in tools and carts; how much the carpenters earned, and how much the stone-cutters: they do not know the destination and the place of anything. The economists cannot deny that they have before them the fragments, scattered pell-mell, of a chef-d’oeuvre, disjecti membra poetae; but it has been impossible for them as yet to recover the general design, and, whenever they have attempted any comparisons, they have met only with incoherence. Driven to despair at last by their fruitless combinations, they have erected as a dogma the architectural incongruity of the science, or, as they say, the inconveniences of its principles; in a word, they have denied the science. [38]

Thus the division of labor, without which production would be almost nothing, is subject to a thousand inconveniences, the worst of which is the demoralization of the laborer; machinery causes, not only cheapness, but obstruction of the market and stoppage of business; competition ends in oppression; taxation, the material bond of society, is generally a scourge dreaded equally with fire and hail; credit is necessarily accompanied by bankruptcy; property is a swarm of abuses; commerce degenerates into a game of chance, in which it is sometimes allowable even to cheat: in short, disorder existing everywhere to an equal extent with order, and no one knowing how the latter is to banish the former, taxis ataxien diokein, the economists have decided that all is for the best, and regard every reformatory proposition as hostile to political economy.

The social edifice, then, has been abandoned; the crowd has burst into the wood-yard; columns, capitals, and plinths, wood, stone, and metal, have been distributed in portions and drawn by lot: and, of all these materials collected for a magnificent temple, property, ignorant and barbarous, has built huts. The work before us, then, is not only to recover the plan of the edifice, but to dislodge the occupants, who maintain that their city is superb, and, at the very mention of restoration, appear in battle-array at their gates. Such confusion was not seen of old at Babel: happily we speak French, and are more courageous than the companions of Nimrod.

But enough of allegory: the historical and descriptive method, successfully employed so long as the work was one of examination only, is henceforth useless: after thousands of monographs and tables, we are no further advanced than in the age of Xenophon and Hesiod. The Phenicians, the Greeks, the Italians, labored in their day as we do in ours: they invested their money, paid their laborers, extended their domains, made their expeditions and recoveries, kept their books, speculated, dabbled in stocks, and ruined themselves according to all the rules of economic art; knowing as well as ourselves how to gain monopolies and fleece the consumer and laborer. Of all this accounts are only too numerous; and, though we should rehearse forever our statistics and our figures, we should always have before our eyes only chaos, — chaos constant and uniform.

It is thought, indeed, that from the era of mythology to the present year 57 of our great revolution, the general welfare has improved: Christianity has long been regarded as the chief cause of this amelioration, but now the economists claim all the honor for their own principles. For after all, they say, what has been the influence of Christianity upon society? Thoroughly utopian at its birth, it has been able to maintain and extend itself only by gradually adopting all the economic categories, — labor, capital, farm-rent, usury, traffic, property; in short, by consecrating the Roman law, the highest expression of political economy.

Christianity, a stranger in its theological aspect to the theories of production and consumption, has been to European civilization what the trades-unions and free-masons were not long since to itinerant workmen, — a sort of insurance company and mutual aid society; in this respect, it owes nothing to political economy, and the good which it has done cannot be invoked by the latter in its own support. The effects of charity and self-sacrifice are outside of the domain of economy, which must bring about social happiness through justice and the organization of labor. For the rest, I am ready to admit the beneficial effects of the system of property; but I observe that these effects are entirely balanced by the misery which it is the nature of this system to produce; so that, as an illustrious minister recently confessed before the English Parliament, and as we shall soon show, the increase of misery in the present state of society is parallel and equal to the increase of wealth, — which completely annuls the merits of political economy.

Thus political economy is justified neither by its maxims nor by its works; and, as for socialism, its whole value consists in having established this fact. We are forced, then, to resume the examination of political economy, since it alone contains, at least in part, the materials of social science; and to ascertain whether its theories do not conceal some error, the correction of which would reconcile fact and right, reveal the organic law of humanity, and give the positive conception of order.

[tasmiq]

Jumu'ah Sohbet: 5 April 2024

Alhamdulillah for another productive Ramadan week in the lead up to Laylatul Qadr (The Night of Power / Decree), where we continued to contemplate on and practice taqwa (self-vigilance).

#1. Anne spoke about Laylatul Qadr (The Night of Power). It involves the Angels where Prophet Muhammad PBUH saw them in person on Laylatul Mi'raj (His blessed night journey and his ascension into Heaven). We may even be blessed to see them as our helpers because they witnessed our creation, and they help us to maintain Allah's order.

Thereafter, Anne said that she hoped that our taqwa (self-vigilance) practices were coming into effect when we were feeling disconnected, angry, or forgetful of turning to Allah. We ought to spend the time in Ramadan with Allah regardless of what is happening around us! The reasons we get angry could be because of injustice or feelings of control, entitlement, or fear. Surely, these are all reasons for us to turn to Allah. Ramadan is the ideal opportunity for detoxing our bad habits.

Ramadan gives us an extra incentive to practice taqwa, which is the actions that Allah is happy with. When we are contemplating on taqwa and we're watching our actions, we keep Allah's pleasure in mind! Many of us reported that this is the most spiritually connected that we've felt, with gratitude for Anne's spiritual leadership acumen.

#2. Fellow murids (followers), Sister Hayat and Wakil Rosieçim reflected that when they were running out of sabr (patience), they practiced taqwa, which moved them into love. One actually feels taqwa in one's body, muscles, and emotions. You have to be involved physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually with love. Similarly, as reflected by Sister Fatima, there is a place where Love is loving itself! It's Allah's love where humans are able to bring it back and reflect Him, insha'Allah.

Khalifa Rubina reflected that because we are studying taqwa so deeply, there were definite changes within our bodies. We perceive the change in our actions, where we experience peace and calmness. Anne astutely picked up another point, where we are experiencing Allah within ourselves. Our brains help us to understand, but our whole beings bring us to live with Allah. That is why it is said that Sufism should be learned by living our individual experiences of Allah.

#3. Our brother Daud referred to observing taqwa through difficulty. Anne postulated that there were two ways to deal with the difficulty. One way could be to surrender to Allah by accepting and witnessing what is happening in the subsequent moments. We pray for it while turning to Allah and saying, "What would You like to show me through this?" This is the moment-by-moment unfolding of my post-accident life which I have entiled my "Accidental Epiphany"! The other futile way is blocking and ignoring it.

Anne reminded us about the legacy of Hazrat Musa AS and Hazrat Khidr AS. When things go wrong, we should be asking the "what" questions rather than the "why" questions. What does Allah want to show me here? Am I seeing what is really happening, or am I seeing the veil? Who will open the veil? Allah will, insha'Allah. It won't happen while we're blocked and turned away. It is through witnessing, acknowledging, and feeling through our human faculties. We are not robots that are locked and closed up. Instead, we open ourselves to Allah.

In conclusion, I am left with humbled gratitude for our Tariqa as a deep spiritual school of like-minded hearts, from myriad walks of life, that have mystically been brought together ...

Shukran Ya Allah (Divine gratitude)

[lushofpinkhues]

Secresies of Rhythm with Hues of Wonder.

Get some time to painstakingly peruse.

Get some time to painstakingly peruse. Perceive my true appreciation to all of you, mutuals. This pinned message capacities as an instructive and fundamental notice and ought not be viewed as definitive, legal, or any kind of hazardous heading. If nobody truly minds, continue to the comments area for acceptance.

I, regardless of anything else, ought to get a handle on that this account is exclusively made for roleplaying purposes. The motivation driving this disclaimer is to introduce day on day updates of my picked muse. Rest assured, this account is intended to be aware and innocuous towards the muse, and I'm focused on steadfastly addressing her later on. See that I don't propose to endanger my muses' image or generate hindrance on the impacts that are auxiliary with her.

I am veritably circumspect of the updates that I post. It is crucial to observe that the photos used are not my own; they were procured from Pinterest, Tumblr and on the accounts of my muse. In any case, stick that these pics are modified by me, I would discover the value in it expecting you to create an effort not to take any of the altered photos, in the event that it's not excessively weighty difficulty. I wish to object to numerous tasks concerning my future work. I'll be the one to make the inscriptions for my updates, and the choice of terms for my updates will be told by the courses of action I've found out about my muses' posts. I seriously vow to meetly surrender my sources. My dispatch dependably is apparently open for refinement conversations. As a need, any verifiable underpinnings botches in a little while ago making progress work should be thought of and extrapolated as English isn't my nearby language.

Complying with these rules goes past simple customs; it is an unmistakable presentation of regard, consistency, and a devotion to the local area's prosperity.

(1) Not accepting closed accounts to make sure that the account maintains its clean friendlist, by turning away superfluous mess and undesired connections.

(2) Keeping away from inactive accounts to support a connection with a dynamic feed.

(3) Guaranteeing that accounts with non-standard textual styles are not acknowledged, in this manner protecting substance clearness and lucidness. Albeism, or ableism, alludes to the segregation and bias looked by people with disabilities. Gain more information on the links dropped below:

• https://takeoutyourfonts.carrd.co/

• https://tonetags.carrd.co/

• https://aavenb.carrd.co/

• https://endableismtoday.carrd.co/

• https://aaveappropriation.carrd.co/

• https://educateurself.carrd.co/

• https://dotherightthing.carrd.co/

Due to veritable commitments, I may not really for each situation notice comments speedily, I'm anticipating your significant cognizance. Nonetheless, I will attempt to take a gander at the comments locale regularly. Your insight and readership are really esteemed. I'm massively grateful for your presence here. Your smart interests are truly treasure endless.

[unicausnews]

Diljit Dosanjh breaks silence on releasing Sardaar Ji 3 with Hania Aamir, will get trolled; Snakes nature is to slither

Diljit Dosanjh breaks silence on releasing Sardaar Ji 3 with Hania Aamir, will get trolled; Snakes nature is to slither Jun 25, 2025 04:25 PM IST When the trailer of Sardaar Ji 3 launched, offended followers waited for Diljit Dosanjh's assertion on Hania Aamir's casting. Here's what he has to say It was nearly a yr in the past that rumours about Pakistani actor Hania Aamir making her Bollywood debut surfaced on the web, quickly after she joined Punjabi singer and actor Diljit Dosanjh on stage throughout his live performance. Then there was buzz suggesting that she is part of his upcoming movie Sardaar Ji 3. However, after Operation Sindoor, experiences claimed that Hania was dropped from the venture after the Indian movie business imposed a ban on Pakistani artists. When the movie’s trailer launched this week, Hania was a outstanding a part of it. Thus started the trolling, with many demanding Diljit’s elimination from his subsequent Indian movie Border 2. Well, Diljit has now lastly damaged his silence on the controversy, solely to be trolled extra. Diljit Dosanjh and Hania Aamir in Sardaar Ji 3 In a chat with BBC Asian Network, Diljit Dosanjh shared that Sardaar Ji 3 was shot months earlier than tensions rose between India and Pakistan. He acknowledged, “Jab yeh movie bani thi tab toh scenario sab theek tha. Matlab jab yeh humne shoot kiya, February mein... February mein shoot kiya, tab scenario theek thi, saara kuchh sahi chal raha tha. Uske baad, dekho bohot saari cheezein, badi cheezein humaare haath mein nahi hai. Toh yeh producers ne determine kiya ki yeh movie clearly ab India toh nahi lagegi, toh isko abroad launch karte hain. Toh clearly inka bohot paisa laga hua hai, aur jab yeh movie ban rahi thi tab aisa kuchh tha nahi. Toh theek hai fir woh already loss, unn emblem ke dimaag mein hai ki loss toh hoga hello 100%, kyunki ek territory aap usme minus kar rahe ho. Toh, maine bhi jab movie signal ki thi tab toh sab theek tha, toh abhi ab conditions humaare haath mein hai nahi. Toh bahar launch karna chahte hain, toh predominant unke saath hun.” Well, netizens aren't having it. Trolling Diljit below a Reddit thread that includes a clip from his interview, one social media consumer opined, “Can we truly cancel his citizenship? Are there any provisions for that? I would really like him to not enter this nation once more please 🙏🏼,” whereas one other wrote, “He is wealthy sufficient to afford some loss by not releasing the movie however he selected to not.” A remark learn, “He is a snake and we must always cease asking a snake why he bit us. Rather keep away from this snake and ignore his films,” whereas a netizen agreed and wrote, “Snakes' nature is to slither…” Another offended web consumer claimed, “Jo apne desh ka nhi hua woh kisi ka nhi hota, ese gadaar hamesha rahe hai India mein.” However, there have been a number of followers who understood Diljit’s level. One such netizen acknowledged, “Sorry what’s the difficulty right here ? They ought to have shelved the movie due to the struggle? The producers would have suffered big loses,” whereas one other remark learn, “But it is true. The movie has been made, cash has been misplaced. Why ought to producers lose the quantity they paid? If the capturing would have began after assault then perhaps they may have stopped, however that is too late. Are you going to pay the producers the quantity they spent? If sure, producers might be glad to cease the discharge. Since you aren't dropping cash it is easy so that you can recommendation.” Also starring Neeru Bajwa, Sardaar Ji 3 is all set to launch abroad, not in India, on June 27. Read More: https://news.unicaus.in/entertainment/diljit-dosanjh-breaks-silence-on-releasing-sardaar-ji-3-with-hania-aamir-will-get-trolled-snakes-nature-is-to-slither/

[seorajan]

Divulging Quality Wellbeing Care: ISO 15189 Certification in Nepal

The wellbeing division is one of the most quickly creating segments in Nepal, where requests for exact and solid demonstrative offices have come to a tallness. ISO 15189 certification, in this respect, acted as a U-turn toward greatness for therapeutic research facilities. It not as it were cements the validity of symptomatic administrations but too puts them into an universal measurement to construct up believe and productivity. Diagram of the ISO 15189 Certification in Nepal and how this accreditation brought alter to the restorative laboratories.

What is the ISO 15189 Certification?

Basically, ISO-International Organization for Standardization created the standard ISO 15189 as it were for restorative research facilities. Through this universal standard, it creates the quality administration frameworks necessities and those of research facility competence. ISO 15189 research facility accreditation gives verification of a commitment to precision, unwavering quality, and convenience in the conveyance of demonstrative results.

Why is ISO 15189 Vital to Nepal?

Being one of the fastest-growing divisions in Nepal, much of this wellbeing segment still contains numerous dim zones that are not up to the check and may raise flawed comes about since of the need of standardization over different research facilities. ISO 15189 will offer assistance fathom these issues and advance persistent advancement and quality in the research facility culture. It will be a major jump for Nepal down the way of fortifying wellbeing administrations and opening worldwide collaboration.

Key Benefits of ISO 15189 Certification

Increased Symptomatic Precision: The accreditation guarantees that the research facilities take after exacting rules, minimizing errors.

2. Increased Persistent Certainty: Certify research facilities are considered to be dependable; consequently, patients and healthcare suppliers will be certain in them.

3. Operational Brilliance: ISO 15189 makes a difference in the smooth running of research facility operations.

4. International Acknowledgment: The research facilities will gotten to be solid at an universal level, making it simple for them to collaborate with and accomplice with other labs.

5. Legal Compliance: It makes a difference the research facilities to meet different national and worldwide administrative requirements.

6. Continuous Quality Advancement: ISO 15189 actualizes a culture of persistent advancement on the hones performed at laboratories.

Steps to ISO 15189 Accreditation in Nepal

Standard Presentation: Present the standard, ISO 15189 to the staff working in the laboratory.

2. Gap Investigation: Discover out where change ought to be done in your organization by benchmarking hones to the standards.

3. QMS Advancement: Set up a framework that would ensure the execution of the rules managed by the standard ISO 15189.

4. Staff Preparing: Give information and aptitudes around the standard to the research facility personnel.

5. Internal Reviews: Routinely assess the forms for their compliance with the certification requirements.

6. Engagement of Accreditation Body: Profit the administrations of an authorize body for reviews and certification.

7. Certification Support: Frequently upgrade the forms and hones to keep up with compliance.

ISO 15189 Usage Challenges in Nepal

Most research facilities, particularly at the provincial level, do not have satisfactory monetary and specialized assets to contribute in the accreditation process.

Lack of mindfulness almost ISO 15189 and its benefits is one of the major barriers.

Difficulty in enrollment and maintenance of prepared personnel.

Sustainability-the guidelines would require to be proceeded with more exertion and investment.

ISO Certification in Nepal: A More prominent Perspective

Though ISO 15189 applies to therapeutic research facilities, the other vital and similarly pertinent certifications incorporate ISO 9001 for Quality Administration Frameworks and ISO 14001 for Natural Administration Frameworks. These are vital in distinctive circles of the Nepal economy and guarantee that an coordinates system of quality and maintainability is revered in Nepal, which straightforwardly contributes to her financial development.

How to Select a Certification Partner

The choice of an suitable accomplice is of substance to Research facilities that wish to look for ISO 15189 accreditation. Contemplations include:

Accreditation: It ought to be recognized by pertinent worldwide authorities.

2. Experience: Discover a supplier that has encounter in the accreditation of therapeutic laboratories.

3. Support Administrations: Favor accomplices advertising preparing, crevice investigation, and back after accomplishing the certificate.

4. Local Information: The supplier must have understanding into the Nepal wellbeing care scene and the administrative environment.

ISO 15189 Accreditation to Alter the Confront of Nepal's Healthcare

ISO 15189 is not a standard; it is one way toward improvement and upliftment in the healthcare foundation of Nepal. The licensed research facilities will be bound to set more up to date statures of quality and unwavering quality among the patients and wellbeing suppliers, consequently rousing certainty. A major walk toward assembly worldwide acknowledgment and enhancement in healthcare outcomes.

Conclusion

ISO 15189 will bring ocean alter into the working of restorative research facilities in Nepal, putting them at standard with the best in the world. Application of this standard will offer assistance them present more accuracy in their work, increment worldwide validity, and take part effectively in the national wellbeing improvement process.

ISO Certification in Nepal, counting ISO 15189, in this manner, includes esteem on a few fronts: commitment to speculation in quality and people's believe. Start your certification travel presently and connect as a catalyst in changing the healthcare division from a Nepalese point of view.

[weo098j]

Fire-Resistant Gypsum Partitions: An Essential for Building Safety

In modern day global, safety is on the top of all and sundry's listing when it comes to designing and building homes. From residential houses to business complexes, people are prioritizing substances and methods that decorate safety, specially against fire risks. Among the various alternatives, gypsum walls stand out as a practical, powerful, and widely used solution for building safety. Gypsum partitions, acknowledged for his or her fire-resistant properties, are an essential component in modern creation. In this newsletter, we’ll discover what makes gypsum partition fire-resistant, the way it enhances building protection, and why it ought to be a top desire for any production assignment.

What Are Gypsum Partitions?

Gypsum walls are wall partitions crafted from gypsum, a naturally taking place mineral composed of calcium sulfate dihydrate. They are usually made inside the form of gypsum forums, which may be reduce and shaped to match specific wall sizes, making them flexible for a extensive range of constructing layouts. Gypsum boards are commonly utilized in houses, offices, hospitals, and various commercial spaces because of their light-weight nature and simplicity of installation.

One of the primary benefits of gypsum is that it is non-flamable, this means that it does not capture fireplace without difficulty. This makes gypsum walls in particular beneficial in enhancing hearth protection, that's crucial in today’s construction requirements and codes.

Understanding Fire Resistance in Gypsum Partitions

Fire resistance refers to the capability of a cloth or form to face up to fireplace and save you it from spreading. When it involves building materials, a immoderate degree of hearth resistance can make a extensive distinction in containing a fireplace and permitting human beings enough time to evacuate very well.

Gypsum partitions are fireplace-resistant specifically due to the water content material in gypsum. Gypsum carries water molecules that, while exposed to heat, are regularly launched inside the form of steam. This method is known as "calcination." As the gypsum board heats up, the water within the gypsum absorbs the heat, preventing the spread of flames and retaining the temperature down for longer intervals. Essentially, gypsum acts as a barrier against fire by way of slowing down its spread, giving extra time for building occupants to go out safely.

Key Benefits of Fire-Resistant Gypsum Partitions

Enhanced Safety in Emergencies

Gypsum walls offer extra protection in emergency conditions. Because they do now not seize fireplace quick, those partitions deliver people extra time to evacuate, and that they help lessen the harm due to flames. In multi-tale homes and public spaces, these extra minutes may be lifesaving, particularly in noticeably populated areas.

Containment of Fire and Smoke

Fire-resistant gypsum walls assist comprise now not only flames however also smoke. Smoke inhalation is one of the main reasons of fatalities in fires. A gypsum partition can act as a barrier, preventing smoke from spreading to different rooms or regions, which enables in growing safer get away routes for those within the building.

Compliance with Building Codes

Building codes round the sector require positive degrees of fire resistance in constructing substances to ensure protection. Fire-resistant gypsum walls are broadly normal and encouraged for assembly those standards. By the usage of those walls, developers and designers can make certain they're compliant with safety codes, that is vital for obtaining constructing lets in and insurance.

Cost-Effective Fire Protection

Compared to other hearth-resistant materials, gypsum is surprisingly inexpensive, making it a value-effective solution for fireplace safety. Additionally, gypsum partitions are easy to install, which means less labor time and fee. This affordability, mixed with its hearth-resistant features, makes gypsum partitions a popular desire for each residential and industrial production tasks.

Adaptability and Versatility

Gypsum partitions may be customized to suit diverse interior designs and functions. They are to be had in special thicknesses and grades, permitting developers to select the extent of fireside resistance required. They also can be painted, textured, or finished in a manner that enhances the general aesthetic of the distance, making them a realistic and visually appealing desire.

How to Maximize Fire Resistance in Gypsum Partitions

To fully enjoy the fireplace-resistant residences of gypsum partitions, there are certain installation guidelines and practices to keep in mind:

Use the Right Type of Gypsum Board: Fire-resistant gypsum forums, regularly categorized as "Type X" or "Type C" boards, include additives that beautify their hearth-resistant properties. Type X boards generally have a hearth rating of one hour or more, whilst Type C offers even higher fireplace resistance. These boards are perfect for regions that require strict fire protection measures, like stairwells and corridors in industrial homes.

Ensure Proper Installation: Even the great materials can fail if not set up correctly. Professional set up is fundamental to making sure that the gypsum partition plays optimally inside the event of a fire. It is important to observe producer pointers and use the best fasteners and gear.

Seal Joints and Edges Properly: Gaps or improperly sealed joints can reduce the hearth resistance of a gypsum partition. Use hearth-resistant caulking or sealant to ensure that each one seams are nicely sealed. This will save you warmth and smoke from penetrating through any small gaps.

Regular Inspections and Maintenance: Like any constructing characteristic, gypsum walls advantage from everyday exams and renovation. Look for any symptoms of damage, cracks, or damage that can compromise their hearth-resistant features. Repairs must be carried out as quickly as possible to preserve the walls powerful.

Applications of Fire-Resistant Gypsum Partitions

Fire-resistant gypsum walls are used in a number of settings due to their protection benefits:

Commercial Spaces: Office buildings, purchasing department stores, and airports generally use gypsum walls to create fireplace-secure environments. These partitions assist divide massive regions into smaller sections, which could gradual down hearth unfold.

Residential Homes: In houses, gypsum partitions are frequently used to split rooms or create safe zones in basements and garages. They offer an extra layer of safety for families.

Hospitals and Educational Institutions: Hospitals and schools regularly require stringent fireplace protection measures. Gypsum partitions help create a more secure environment for sufferers, students, and personnel through minimizing the danger of fire and smoke spreading.

Conclusion

Gypsum walls are greater than just a practical wall solution—they are a critical issue in fireplace protection. With their natural fire-resistant properties, they offer an lower priced, reliable, and effective manner to decorate the safety of any building. By slowing down the spread of fireplace and containing smoke, gypsum walls assist guard lives and minimize property damage. Whether you're constructing a new building or renovating an present area, thinking about gypsum partitions for their fireplace resistance can be a valuable investment in protection.

[cowboyposer]

Using the very real stigma against people with cluster b disorders as an excuse for one’s own bad behavior is quite literally a symptom of their disorder. Nearly all cluster b diagnostic criteria include refusing to or struggling to take responsibility for one’s own actions.

I’m not saying it’s the correct response—of course they ought to own up to their behavior—but it is very much a symptom of their disorder. The disorder is showing itself.

This would explain my abuser. I guess I don't understand why a lot of people cry "stigma" for acknowledging the part of the diagnosis that literally says difficulty with relationships. Is the diagnosis itself still stigma? I'm learning even if I don't understand it yet, and I do appreciate people replying about it